On Thu, 30 Jul 2020, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 12:35:03 +1000 (AEST) James Morris
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 30 Jul 2020, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >
> > > > I am still applying the above patch ...
> > >
> > > The merge window is coming up fast ... is
Hi Stephen,
On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 12:59:04 +1000 Stephen Rothwell
wrote:
>
> Hi James,
>
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 12:35:03 +1000 (AEST) James Morris
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 30 Jul 2020, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >
> > > > I am still applying the above patch ...
> > >
> > > The merge
Hi James,
On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 12:35:03 +1000 (AEST) James Morris
wrote:
>
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2020, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>
> > > I am still applying the above patch ...
> >
> > The merge window is coming up fast ... is anything happening about this
> > failure?
>
> A new patch is coming,
On Thu, 30 Jul 2020, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > I am still applying the above patch ...
>
> The merge window is coming up fast ... is anything happening about this
> failure?
A new patch is coming, but I'm not sure this code has had enough review
from the core VFS folk.
Please drop
Hi all,
On Mon, 13 Jul 2020 12:04:19 +1000 Stephen Rothwell
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 8 Jul 2020 14:00:34 +1000 Stephen Rothwell
> wrote:
> >
> > After merging the security tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
> > ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
> >
> > fs/anon_inodes.c: In function
Hi all,
On Mon, 13 Jul 2020 12:04:19 +1000 Stephen Rothwell
wrote:
>
> I am still applying the above patch ...
And the mail address Daniel Colascione bounces.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
pgp7yzn576n6Z.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Hi all,
On Wed, 8 Jul 2020 14:00:34 +1000 Stephen Rothwell
wrote:
>
> After merging the security tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
> ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
>
> fs/anon_inodes.c: In function 'anon_inode_make_secure_inode':
> fs/anon_inodes.c:70:10: error: implicit declaration
Hi all,
After merging the security tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
fs/anon_inodes.c: In function 'anon_inode_make_secure_inode':
fs/anon_inodes.c:70:10: error: implicit declaration of function
'security_inode_init_security_anon'; did you mean
On Mon, 19 Aug 2019, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > 2.20.1
>
> I am still applying that patch ...
>
Matthew folded it into commit e6b1db98cf4d54d9ea59cfcc195f70dc946fdd38.
--
James Morris
Hi James,
On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 13:21:19 +1000 Stephen Rothwell
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 10:34:17 -0700 Kees Cook wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 02:58:23PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > >
> > > After merging the security tree, today's linux-next build (arm
> > >
Hi all,
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 10:34:17 -0700 Kees Cook wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 02:58:23PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > After merging the security tree, today's linux-next build (arm
> > multi_v7_defconfig) failed like below.
> >
> > Caused by commit
> >
> >
On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 02:58:23PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> After merging the security tree, today's linux-next build (arm
> multi_v7_defconfig) failed like below.
>
> Caused by commit
>
> 45d29f9e9b8b ("security: Support early LSMs")
>
> I have added the following fix
Hi all,
After merging the security tree, today's linux-next build (arm
multi_v7_defconfig) failed like below.
Caused by commit
45d29f9e9b8b ("security: Support early LSMs")
I have added the following fix for today:
From: Stephen Rothwell
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2019 14:54:20 +1000
Subject:
Hi James,
After merging the security tree, today's linux-next build (sparc64
allmodconfig) failed like this:
In file included from security/apparmor/ipc.c:23:0:
security/apparmor/include/sig_names.h:26:3: error: 'SIGSTKFLT' undeclared here
(not in a function)
[SIGSTKFLT] = 16, /* -, 16, - */
Hi James,
After merging the security tree, today's linux-next build (sparc64
allmodconfig) failed like this:
In file included from security/apparmor/ipc.c:23:0:
security/apparmor/include/sig_names.h:26:3: error: 'SIGSTKFLT' undeclared here
(not in a function)
[SIGSTKFLT] = 16, /* -, 16, - */
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> After merging the security tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
> allmodconfig) failed like this:
>
> In file included from samples/seccomp/bpf-fancy.c:12:0:
> samples/seccomp/bpf-fancy.c: In
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> After merging the security tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
> allmodconfig) failed like this:
>
> In file included from samples/seccomp/bpf-fancy.c:12:0:
> samples/seccomp/bpf-fancy.c: In function 'main':
>
Hi James,
After merging the security tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
allmodconfig) failed like this:
In file included from samples/seccomp/bpf-fancy.c:12:0:
samples/seccomp/bpf-fancy.c: In function 'main':
samples/seccomp/bpf-helper.h:47:26: error: 'SECCOMP_RET_KILL_THREAD' undeclared
Hi James,
After merging the security tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
allmodconfig) failed like this:
In file included from samples/seccomp/bpf-fancy.c:12:0:
samples/seccomp/bpf-fancy.c: In function 'main':
samples/seccomp/bpf-helper.h:47:26: error: 'SECCOMP_RET_KILL_THREAD' undeclared
I fixed the build break (and some trivial compile warnings) due to the
change to the format of keyring_alloc and repushed the *"cifs: Create
dedicated keyring for spnego operations" patch to cifs-2.6.git
for-next
On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 6:14 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>
I fixed the build break (and some trivial compile warnings) due to the
change to the format of keyring_alloc and repushed the *"cifs: Create
dedicated keyring for spnego operations" patch to cifs-2.6.git
for-next
On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 6:14 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Steve,
>
> On Thu, 19
Hi Steve,
On Thu, 19 May 2016 14:01:20 +1000 Stephen Rothwell
wrote:
>
> After merging the security tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
> allmodconfig) failed like this:
>
> fs/cifs/cifs_spnego.c: In function 'init_cifs_spnego':
> fs/cifs/cifs_spnego.c:206:12: error:
Hi Steve,
On Thu, 19 May 2016 14:01:20 +1000 Stephen Rothwell
wrote:
>
> After merging the security tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
> allmodconfig) failed like this:
>
> fs/cifs/cifs_spnego.c: In function 'init_cifs_spnego':
> fs/cifs/cifs_spnego.c:206:12: error: too few arguments to
Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> From: Stephen Rothwell
> Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 13:45:10 +1000
> Subject: [PATCH] cifs: fix for keyringalloc() API change
>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell
> ---
> fs/cifs/cifs_spnego.c | 2 +-
>
Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> From: Stephen Rothwell
> Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 13:45:10 +1000
> Subject: [PATCH] cifs: fix for keyringalloc() API change
>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell
> ---
> fs/cifs/cifs_spnego.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git
Hi James,
After merging the security tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
allmodconfig) failed like this:
fs/cifs/cifs_spnego.c: In function 'init_cifs_spnego':
fs/cifs/cifs_spnego.c:206:12: error: too few arguments to function
'keyring_alloc'
keyring = keyring_alloc(".cifs_spnego",
Hi James,
After merging the security tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
allmodconfig) failed like this:
fs/cifs/cifs_spnego.c: In function 'init_cifs_spnego':
fs/cifs/cifs_spnego.c:206:12: error: too few arguments to function
'keyring_alloc'
keyring = keyring_alloc(".cifs_spnego",
Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > After a bit of digging, I installed libssl-dev on my Debian build
> > machines.
>
> Is this worth a mention in Documentation/Changes along with all the
> other prerequisites?
Could be. It's mentioned in the Kconfig and Documentation/module-signing.txt
already, but
Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au wrote:
After a bit of digging, I installed libssl-dev on my Debian build
machines.
Is this worth a mention in Documentation/Changes along with all the
other prerequisites?
Could be. It's mentioned in the Kconfig and Documentation/module-signing.txt
Hi all,
On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 15:29:53 +1000 Stephen Rothwell
wrote:
>
> After a bit of digging, I installed libssl-dev on my Debian build
> machines.
Is this worth a mention in Documentation/Changes along with all the
other prerequisites?
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Hi all,
On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 15:29:53 +1000 Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au
wrote:
After a bit of digging, I installed libssl-dev on my Debian build
machines.
Is this worth a mention in Documentation/Changes along with all the
other prerequisites?
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Hi James,
After merging the security tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
allmodconfig) failed like this:
scripts/extract-cert.c:23:25: fatal error: openssl/bio.h: No such file or
directory
#include
^
compilation terminated.
scripts/sign-file.c:20:25: fatal error:
Hi James,
After merging the security tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
allmodconfig) failed like this:
scripts/extract-cert.c:23:25: fatal error: openssl/bio.h: No such file or
directory
#include openssl/bio.h
^
compilation terminated.
scripts/sign-file.c:20:25:
Hi James,
After merging the security tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
allyesconfig) failed like this:
crypto/asymmetric_keys/pkcs7_key_type.c: In function 'pkcs7_preparse':
crypto/asymmetric_keys/pkcs7_key_type.c:36:2: error: implicit declaration of
function 'IS_ERR'
Hi James,
After merging the security tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
allyesconfig) failed like this:
crypto/asymmetric_keys/pkcs7_key_type.c: In function 'pkcs7_preparse':
crypto/asymmetric_keys/pkcs7_key_type.c:36:2: error: implicit declaration of
function 'IS_ERR'
35 matches
Mail list logo